4 ms·

One thing that is fascinating me is where to draw the line between forgiving an understandable delay, and really blaming leadership for an unforgivable delay. L

One thing that is fascinating me is where to draw the line between forgiving an understandable delay, and really blaming leadership for an unforgivable delay. Like, I am seeing blame for the us administration not preparing or responding more quickly to public knowledge in mid-february, but... what percentage of us had the forethought to divest our retirement accounts at that time? (I'm not looking for bragging anecdotes here, my point is that most people didn't.) There's a point at which anyone is somewhat certain that something bad is happening or about to happen, without having any sense of intensity or speed, where there's a certain level of human reaction delay. So is there a good standard for when it is no longer forgivable human/societal behavior, and becomes truly egregious cruelty, willful ignorance, and blame-worthy incompetence?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"what percentage of us had the forethought to divest our retirement accounts at that time? (I'm not looking for bragging anecdotes here, my point is that most people didn't.)" The people who were educated and briefed on the full ramifications have done just that: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/19/reports-burr-loeffler-sold-stocks-ahead-coronavirus-marketcrash/2882006001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/19/repo...
staplers 7y ago
The federal government has unmistakably (maliciously at this point) failed us in our greatest time of need. States are now acting fully autonomously and some in open rebellion towards the federal government to support their infrastructure. Every single American is affected by this. Long term, I see regional (multi-state) partnerships evolving into regional governments. Texas, Cascadia, etc. We may be at a turning point where this won't be a 'nutjob' idea anymore. Trump's election was a cry for help to reorganize our system (drain the swamp).
- dingaling 7y ago
  > States are now acting fully autonomously As an outsider I have to ask: isn't that how's it meant to be? The Feds take care of national defense, foreign policy and Interstate commerce and the states look after themselves internally. Surely federalists should be celebrating.
ta1234567890 7y ago
> what percentage of us had the forethought to divest our retirement accounts at that time? What percentage of us had access to intelligence information saying how bad the situation could truly be? What percentage of us have jobs in which we are responsible for other people's lives and the stability of our countries? What percentage of us were getting briefed by the CDC and other related agencies when this whole thing started? You cannot compare the public's reaction to government officials' reactions. It's their job to be on top of this stuff, react appropriately and guide the public through times of crisis like this. That's why we call them leaders. However, you can compare their reaction to the reaction of the leaders of other countries. How did the US government react to this pandemic compared to South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, with months of additional time to do so?
rjyoungling 7y ago
That's indeed fascinating. Any such line will always have an element of arbitrariness. I.e. Pick duration Y. Then why not Y+1 or Y-1. That being said. Pandemics are highly predictable and where I live (Europe) we had the benefit of seeing different approaches being used by different countries with varying degrees of success (Taiwan v. Italy). There are measures (such as air travel restriction) where we know they're not that effective (although they do buy you some time). There are measures (such as social distancing and being early and aggressive in closing schools and other facilities) that are known to be more effective. I think the line can be drawn where one has sufficient information to act quickly and still refuses to do so. In government's (limited) defense. Exponentials are highly counterintuitive, so it's understandable the right thing feels strange. The right time to implement measures is precisely when everything 'feels fine'. That, coupled with political blowback and economical impact serves as a constraint to quick action IMO. [1] I'm by no means an expert in this field. I merely study human behavior in the context of business. So with a little luck, an epidemiologist will chime in. [1] I suspect that there's 1 other bias that plays a role. Namely, what doesn't occur is harder to quantify than that which does. E.g. The FDA might pull a drug and save lives as a result. On the flip side, the lives that are lost because certain drugs take years and years to market are hard to measure. There are virtually no consequences for The FDA regarding the lives that are lost by being slow. There are massive consequences for the lives that are lost by approving a bad drug. Now imagine that the harder to quantify lives lost due to slowness exceeds those due to bad drugs. That would mean The FDA had a negative net-effect yet it would feel positive due to this bias.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  Regarding your footnote, I think that also applies to our state Governors. I don't think they have the advantage of federally classified briefings, so they're reacting to public analysis and the situation on the ground. For instance, Oregon has implemented distancing and stay-in-place fairly early (apparently) in the state's outbreak. But Oregon is also surrounded by WA and CA, which maybe made it easier to do so. A landlocked state in the south surrounded by other states that aren't taking it seriously might find it much more difficult to get buy-in for making those decisions. Then you have states like Florida where it seems incredibly obvious they should have taken steps before now.
op03 7y ago
Blame games are easy to play and have no doubt politicians will. But if you are interested in how to think about these kind of decisions this might be more useful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"what percentage of us had the forethought to divest our retirement accounts at that time? (I'm not looking for bragging anecdotes here, my point is that most people didn't.)" The people who were educated and briefed on the full ramifications have done just that: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/19/reports-burr-loeffler-sold-stocks-ahead-coronavirus-marketcrash/2882006001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/19/repo...

staplers 7y ago

The federal government has unmistakably (maliciously at this point) failed us in our greatest time of need. States are now acting fully autonomously and some in open rebellion towards the federal government to support their infrastructure. Every single American is affected by this. Long term, I see regional (multi-state) partnerships evolving into regional governments. Texas, Cascadia, etc. We may be at a turning point where this won't be a 'nutjob' idea anymore. Trump's election was a cry for help to reorganize our system (drain the swamp).

dingaling 7y ago
> States are now acting fully autonomously As an outsider I have to ask: isn't that how's it meant to be? The Feds take care of national defense, foreign policy and Interstate commerce and the states look after themselves internally. Surely federalists should be celebrating.

ta1234567890 7y ago

> what percentage of us had the forethought to divest our retirement accounts at that time? What percentage of us had access to intelligence information saying how bad the situation could truly be? What percentage of us have jobs in which we are responsible for other people's lives and the stability of our countries? What percentage of us were getting briefed by the CDC and other related agencies when this whole thing started? You cannot compare the public's reaction to government officials' reactions. It's their job to be on top of this stuff, react appropriately and guide the public through times of crisis like this. That's why we call them leaders. However, you can compare their reaction to the reaction of the leaders of other countries. How did the US government react to this pandemic compared to South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, with months of additional time to do so?

rjyoungling 7y ago

That's indeed fascinating. Any such line will always have an element of arbitrariness. I.e. Pick duration Y. Then why not Y+1 or Y-1. That being said. Pandemics are highly predictable and where I live (Europe) we had the benefit of seeing different approaches being used by different countries with varying degrees of success (Taiwan v. Italy). There are measures (such as air travel restriction) where we know they're not that effective (although they do buy you some time). There are measures (such as social distancing and being early and aggressive in closing schools and other facilities) that are known to be more effective. I think the line can be drawn where one has sufficient information to act quickly and still refuses to do so. In government's (limited) defense. Exponentials are highly counterintuitive, so it's understandable the right thing feels strange. The right time to implement measures is precisely when everything 'feels fine'. That, coupled with political blowback and economical impact serves as a constraint to quick action IMO. [1] I'm by no means an expert in this field. I merely study human behavior in the context of business. So with a little luck, an epidemiologist will chime in. [1] I suspect that there's 1 other bias that plays a role. Namely, what doesn't occur is harder to quantify than that which does. E.g. The FDA might pull a drug and save lives as a result. On the flip side, the lives that are lost because certain drugs take years and years to market are hard to measure. There are virtually no consequences for The FDA regarding the lives that are lost by being slow. There are massive consequences for the lives that are lost by approving a bad drug. Now imagine that the harder to quantify lives lost due to slowness exceeds those due to bad drugs. That would mean The FDA had a negative net-effect yet it would feel positive due to this bias.

tunesmith 7y ago
Regarding your footnote, I think that also applies to our state Governors. I don't think they have the advantage of federally classified briefings, so they're reacting to public analysis and the situation on the ground. For instance, Oregon has implemented distancing and stay-in-place fairly early (apparently) in the state's outbreak. But Oregon is also surrounded by WA and CA, which maybe made it easier to do so. A landlocked state in the south surrounded by other states that aren't taking it seriously might find it much more difficult to get buy-in for making those decisions. Then you have states like Florida where it seems incredibly obvious they should have taken steps before now.

op03 7y ago

Blame games are easy to play and have no doubt politicians will. But if you are interested in how to think about these kind of decisions this might be more useful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing